1999 (6) TMI 481 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods.
2. Reversal of credit availed of duty paid on inputs.
3. Denial of refund claims for the reversed credit.
4. Interpretation of Notification 203/92-Cus dated 19.5.92.
5. Compliance with Modvat Rules and Customs Act.
6. Applicability of DEEC Scheme and VABAL Scheme.
7. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities under Section 111 (o) of Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The appellants manufactured and exported Colour TV sets, availing Modvat credit on inputs used in production. The Central Excise authorities directed them to reverse the credit due to Notification 203/92-Cus. The Tribunal cited the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Aggarwal Rubber Products Ltd., stating that Modvat Rules do not provide for such reversal and allowed refund claims as per self-contained Modvat Rules.

2. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions of Notification 203/92 should not be read into the Modvat Rules. It clarified that any violation of the notification should result in denial of duty-free importation, not reversal of Modvat credit. The Tribunal highlighted that the Modvat Rules are a self-contained code approved by Parliament, and reversals must strictly adhere to Rule 57-I parameters, which were not met in this case.

3. Referring to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that provisions of Import Policy cannot be imported into Modvat Rules for credit reversal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of Central Excise Rules, hence dismissing the appeal of the Revenue and allowing the refund claims for the reversed Modvat credit.

4. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument of denial of Modvat credit based on the DEEC Scheme and VABAL Scheme, emphasizing that the Modvat Scheme did not exclude benefits for exports under these schemes. It highlighted that the Tribunal cannot extend the scope beyond what is legislatively provided, and any violation should be addressed under the Customs Act.

5. The Tribunal discussed the jurisdiction of Customs authorities under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act. It clarified that breach of conditions under the Exemption Notification could enable Customs authorities to investigate and take action under the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the breach of conditions did not warrant denial of Modvat credit and upheld the lower authority's decision.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the precedent set by previous decisions that Modvat credit reversals should strictly adhere to the Modvat Rules and not be influenced by other schemes or notifications. The Tribunal upheld the appellants' right to claim refund for the reversed Modvat credit, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.